You are on page 1of 5

tion.

Three common models for the COR were introduced: (i) the
A New Contact Force Model for Low kinematic, Newton’s model [5], (ii) the impulsive, Poisson’s
Coefficient of Restitution Impact model [6], and (iii) the energetic model [7]. In each model, the
equation defining the COR is known as the “Impact Law.”
kinematic e ¼ Dtf =Dti (1)
Mohamed Gharib
Mechanical Engineering Department, kinetic e ¼ sr =sc (2)
Southern Methodist University,
Dallas, TX 75275 energetic e2 ¼ Wr =Wc (3)
e-mail: mgharib@smu.edu
where Dvi and Dvf are the initial and final differences in normal
Yildirim Hurmuzlu1 velocities respectively, sc and sr are the normal impulses during
the compression and the restitution phases respectively, and Wc
Professor and Wr are the work done during the compression and the restitu-
Mechanical Engineering Department, tion phases, respectively.
Southern Methodist University, In general, two approaches are common in solving the impact
Dallas, TX 75275 problems. The first approach is the impulse-momentum based
e-mail: hurmuzlu@lyle.smu.edu method. The underlying assumption of this method is that the
impact takes place in a very short time. As a result, the position
and configuration of the colliding bodies do not change during the
collision period. The process is divided into two intervals, before
Impact problems arise in many practical applications. The need impact and after impact. Experimentally measured collision pa-
for obtaining an accurate model for the inelastic impact is a chal- rameter, COR, is needed to solve the problem. The post collision
lenging problem. In general, two approaches are common in solv- velocities are obtained by solving the conservation of momentum
ing the impact problems: the impulse-momentum and the and the impact law equations presented above. The second
compliance based methods. The former approach included the approach is the compliance based methods, also known as contin-
coefficient of restitution which provides a mechanism to solve uous or contact force based methods. The colliding bodies are
the problem explicitly. While the compliance methods are generally assumed to be rigid with localized compliance and damping ele-
tailored to solve elastic problems, researchers in the field have pro- ments (such as springs and dashpots) inserted at the contact points
posed several mechanisms to include inelastic losses. In this paper, of the colliding bodies. The problem is solved by obtaining the
we present correlations between the coefficient of restitution in the equations of motion of the system and computing the position and
impulse-momentum based method and the contact stiffness in the velocity profiles through time integration.
compliance methods. We conducted numerical analysis to show The objective of this paper is to correlate the parameters in both
that the resulting solutions are indeed identical for a specific range the impulse momentum and the compliance based methods. As a
of impact conditions. The impulse-momentum based model is con- result, a new contact force model is introduced which is valid for
sidered as a reference case to compare the post impact velocities. low coefficient of restitution impact.
The numerical results showed that, the impulse-momentum and the
compliance based methods can produce similar outcomes for spe- 2 Classic Models for Two Ball Impacts
cific range of coefficient of restitution if they satisfied a set of end
conditions. The correlations lead to introduce a new contact force 2.1 Impulse Momentum Model. Consider the two balls, B1
model with hysteresis damping for low coefficient of restitution and B2, with masses m1 and m2 that are depicted in Fig. 1. Ball B1
impact. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4006494] strikes the Ball B2 with a velocity of t
1 . The ball B2 has initial ve-
locity t2 at the instant of impact. The collision causes the normal
1 Introduction
Impact is defined as the collision between two bodies that occur
over a short time interval, during which the bodies exert large
forces on each other [1–3]. Furthermore, impact can be defined as
a velocity jump, which is accompanied by an impulsive force [4].
One can characterize the impact problem by very short time inter-
val, presence of large reaction forces, rapid dissipation of energy,
and rapid increase and decrease in acceleration and deceleration,
respectively. Geometric discontinuities may appear during the
impact due to the possibility of change of material properties.
During impact, two phases occur; the first one is the compression
phase when the two bodies come into contact and press against
each other. The second phase is the restitution phase, during
which the bodies move away from one another while remaining in
contact. The latter phase ends when the two bodies are separated.
The energy loss due to impact can be expressed in terms of a
coefficient called the coefficient of restitution (COR), e, where
typically 0  e  1. The limiting values correspond to the per-
fectly elastic (e ¼ 1) and the perfectly plastic (e ¼ 0) collisions.
The COR may depend on pre-impact velocities, geometry, and
material properties of the colliding bodies, contact time, and fric-

1
Corresponding author.
Manuscript received September 10, 2011; final manuscript received March 12,
2012; accepted manuscript posted April 2, 2012; published online September 21,
2012. Assoc. Editor: Vikram Deshpande. Fig. 1 Impulse momentum model

Journal of Applied Mechanics Copyright V


C 2012 by ASME NOVEMBER 2012, Vol. 79 / 064506-1

Downloaded 23 Sep 2012 to 86.36.66.12. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
impulse s ¼ sðtÞ. The problem at hand is to determine the post
impact velocities tþ þ
1 and t2 .
One can write the conservation of linear momentum equation
for the two balls as follows:
m1 t   þ þ
1 þ m2 t2 ¼ m1 t1 þ m2 t2 (4)

The kinematic impact law; given by Eq. (1) can also be written as:
eðt  þ þ
1  t2 Þ ¼ ðt1  t2 Þ (5)

Solving Eqs. (4) and (5) for tþ þ


1 and t2 , we get:
1

1 ¼ ½ðm1  e m2 Þt 
1 þ ð1 þ eÞm2 t2  (6)
m1 þ m2
1

2 ¼ ½ðm2  e m1 Þt 
2 þ ð1 þ eÞm1 t1  (7)
m1 þ m2

One can also express the conservation of momentum equations in


terms of the normal impulse s, which yields: Fig. 3 Contact force model for elastic impact

t1 ¼ t 1
1  m1 s (8)

t2 ¼ t 1
2  m2 s (9)

One can use these equations to plot the velocities in terms of


the normal impulse to obtain the impulse-velocity diagram pre-
sented in Fig. 2.

2.2 Hertz Compliance Model for Elastic Impact. Hertz [8]


developed the common force model for the contact between two
spheres of isotropic material. He introduced the following relation
between the contact force F and the indentation d, which is known
as Hertz compliance contact model (see Fig. 3):
F ¼ K dn (10)

where, K is the contact stiffness, and n is the compliance expo- Fig. 4 Two ball contact
nent. A typical value for n is 1.5 for Hertzian models. Consider
again the two ball impacts. Figure 4 depicts the interaction
between the two balls during the contact period. The kinematics where, Rj (j ¼ 1, 2) are the radii of the balls. The contact stiffness
of the system can be expressed as: for the Hertzian model (n ¼ 3/2) [9] is defined by:
d ¼ ðx1  x2 Þ þ ðR1 þ R2 Þ (11) rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 1 R1 R2
K¼ (12)
3 k1 þ k2 R1 þ R2

1  j2
kj ¼ ; j ¼ 1; 2 (13)
Ej

where,  j is the Poisson’s ratio and Ej is the modulus of elasticity


of the ball Bj. Using Newton’s second law, the equations of
motion can be written as follows:
m1 x€1 ¼ F (14)

m2 x€2 ¼ F (15)

By solving Eqs. (10), (14), and (15) for xj(t) and F(t), we have
the full dynamic response of the system. We can obtain the post
impact velocities vþ þ
i ¼ x_ i ðt Þ by differentiating the mass displace-
ments xj(t) then evaluating the resulting velocities at the termina-
tion of impact ðt ¼ tþ Þ. An alternative form of Eqs. (14) and (15)
is:
me d€ ¼ F (16)

where the effective mass me is defined by:


m1 m2
me ¼ (17)
Fig. 2 Impulse velocity diagram m1 þ m2

064506-2 / Vol. 79, NOVEMBER 2012 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 23 Sep 2012 to 86.36.66.12. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Equation (16) was obtained by subtracting Eq. (15) from Eq. (14). e ¼ 1  a ti (24)

3 Compliance Model With Hysteresis Damping The damping coefficients expression in Eqs. (19)–(23) were
introduced by Refs. [10–14], respectively.
3.1 Classical Model. The Hertz model, Eq. (10), is valid Zhang and Sharf [15] carried out several experiments to vali-
only for elastic impact (e ¼ 1). A model proposed by Hunt and date Hunt-Crossley model. They compared their experimental
Crossley [10] to include the elastic collision by adding a damping results with theoretical work for each expression for the damping
term to the Hertz model can be written as follows: coefficient. Finally, they concluded that the Hunt-Crossley [10]
F ¼ K dn þ kdn d_ (18) model produces good results in the nearly elastic impact range
(e > 0.95)
where k is the damping coefficient. This model assumes that the
deformation of the colliding bodies occur in the elastic range of 3.2 Correlation Between the COR and the Damping
the materials properties. This is corresponding to low velocity Coefficient. At the end of the collision the contact force vanishes
impacts where the energy dissipated in the form of internal damp- and the indentation reduces to zero, but the final indentation ve-
ing or heat. Hence, once the restitution phase ends, the indentation locity (d_f ) still is not zero:
value becomes zero as shown in Fig. 5(a).
Several researchers proposed expressions for the damping F ! 0
coefficient:
d ! df ¼ 0
k ¼ ð3=2ÞaK (19)
d_ ! d_f ¼ tþ þ
1  t2
k ¼ 6ð1  eÞðK=ti Þ=ð½2e  12 þ 3Þ (20)

k ¼ ð3=4ÞaK (21) Substituting into Eq. (18)


dnf ðK þ kd_f Þ ¼ 0 (25)
k ¼ ð3=4ÞðK=ti Þð1  e2 Þ (22)
 
kti þ K One solution for Eq. (25) is df ¼ 0, which is already known.
0 ¼ akt2i  2kti þ K loge (23) Another solution can be written as:
K  kð1  ati Þ
K
d_f ¼  (26)
where vi is the initial velocity of the impacting body (assuming k
that the other body is at rest) and a is an empirical coefficient
obtained from the a linear fit of the experimental data for the COR Recalling the impulse momentum based impact law Eq. (5), the
as a function of the impact velocity. relationship between the initial and final velocities is:

Fig. 5 Compliance models: (a) contact force model with hysteresis damping, (b) contact
force model with permanent indentation, and (c) bilinear contact force model

Journal of Applied Mechanics NOVEMBER 2012, Vol. 79 / 064506-3

Downloaded 23 Sep 2012 to 86.36.66.12. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
2 3
d_f ¼ ed_o (27)  1
Kc n
dp ¼ dm 41  5 (37)
Kr
Equating Eqs. (26) and (27), we get:
1K
k¼ (28) The work done during the compression and restitution phases
e d_o can be obtained by integrating the force over the corresponding
collision period. Hence, we get:
Hence, we have a new formula for the damping coefficient that ð dm
correlates the compliance with hysteresis damping model to the K c dnþ1
Wc ¼ Fc dd ¼ m
(38)
impulse momentum method. Equation (28) can be used to deduce 0 nþ1
k while e is experimentally obtained.
ð dp
K c ðdm  dp Þnþ1
4 Compliance Model With Permanent Indentation Wr ¼ Fr dd ¼ (39)
dm nþ1
4.1 Classical Model. Local plastic deformation may occur in
the metallic contacting bodies at higher impact velocities. The re- Substituting Eqs. (38) and (39) into the energetic impact law Eq.
sidual deformation after separation is known as permanent inden- (3) yields:
tation. The energy loss is due to the dissipation that occurs during  c 1
the formation of these indentations. This process is shown in Fig. Wr K n
e2 ¼  ¼ (40)
5(b) and described mathematically by the following equations: Wc Kr
compression Fc ¼ K dn (29)
Hence, we have an explicit relationship between the contact
  stiffness during the restitution (Kr) and the one during the com-
d  dp n
restituion Fr ¼ fm (30) pression (Kc) in terms of the COR and Hertz exponent. The typical
dm  dp
solution procedure to compute Kr can be enumerated as follows:
where the superscripts “c” and “r” refer to the compression and (1) calculate (Kc) using Eq. (12)
restitution phases, respectively. The above equation satisfies the (2) determine the Cor (experimentally), then,
geometric constraints of the contact process, which can be enum- (3) calculate (Kr) using Eq. (40).
erated as follows:
F ! fm as d ! dm
d ! dp as F!0 Using Eq. (40) we can write Eq. (37) as:
dp ¼ dm ½1  e2  (41)
Lankarani and Nikravesh [16] derived a formula for the maxi-
mum indentation (dm) by solving Eq. (16) analytically (see Ref.
[16] for detailed derivation). Then, they obtained a formula for Equation (41) can be also obtained by substituting Eq. (31) into
the permanent indentation (dp) by equating the energy loss from Eq. (32) and simplifying the resulting expression (although this
the compliance model with permanent indentation to the energy was never done in Ref. [16]). Moreover, using Eqs. (34) and (30),
loss from the impulse momentum method. Accordingly, the restitution stiffness can be written in two ways using
" # 1 equations:
ðn þ 1Þme d_2o nþ1 kr ¼ kc =e2n ¼ fm =ðdm  dp Þn (42)
dm ¼ (31)
2K c
Here, we should note that the left hand side of this equation is
ðn þ 1Þme d_2o derived using the energetic COR while the right hand side is
dp ¼ ð1  e2 Þ (32)
2 fm derived the kinetic energy balance.
A special case for this model is the bilinear compliance model
where d_o is the initial indentation velocity; ðd_o ¼ t 
1  t2 Þ and fm
shown in Fig. 5(c) The compliance exponent is unity. Hence, Eq.
is
 the force
 corresponding to the maximum indentation (40) reduces to the form:
fm ¼ K c dnm .  c
K
e2 ¼ (43)
Kr
4.2 Correlation Between the COR and the Contact
Stiffness. For the model shown in Fig. 5(b), we propose a funda-
mental equation that describes the compression and restitution Ismail and Strong [17] used the bilinear compliance model to
phases: introduce a viscoelastic COR in frictional impact. In their work,
they assume that Kr ¼ c2Kc, where c was called the plastic loss
compression Fc ¼ K c dn (33) factor.
n
restitution Fr ¼ K r ðd  dp Þ (34)
5 Numerical Results
The aim is to find a relationship between the contact stiffness, Numerical simulations were carried out to compare the impulse
Kc and Kr, and the coefficient of restitution, e. The maximum momentum model with three compliance models:
force can be obtained as:
(a) the compliance model with permanent indentation
Fm ¼ K c dnm (35) described by Eqs. (29) and (30)
(b) the compliance model with hysteresis damping (Lankar-
Fm ¼ K r ðdm  dp Þn (36) ani and Nikravesh model [13]) described by Eqs. (18)
and (22)
Equating Eqs. (35) and (36) and solving for the permanent inden- (c) the new compliance model with hysteresis damping
tation dp, yields: described by Eqs. (18) and (28)

064506-4 / Vol. 79, NOVEMBER 2012 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 23 Sep 2012 to 86.36.66.12. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Table 1 Numerical values based models. We also established a correlation between the coef-
ficient of restitution (in the impulse momentum model) and the
Property Ball 1 Ball 2 Units contact stiffness (in compliance models). Two correlations were
obtained. The former correlation for the compliance models with
m 1.0 1.0 kg hysteresis damping and the other one is for the compliance models
t- 1.0 0.0 m/s
E 56 56 GPa
with permanent indentation. In the first correlation, we used the
 0.3 0.3 force end condition to derive a new relationship for the damping
q 2712 2712 kg/m3 factor. In the latter correlation, we used the definition of the ener-
getic coefficient of restitution to derive a relationship among the
coefficient of restitution and the compression and restitution stiff-
nesses. The numerical results showed that the impulse momentum
and the compliance model with permanent indentation produce
identical results. While the common compliance model with hys-
teresis damping is valid only for nearly elastic impacts (e > 0.9),
the new model proposed here produces good agreement for cases
with a lower range of coefficient of restitution (e < 0.3).

Nomenclature
COR ¼ coefficient of restitution
E¼ modulus of elasticity
F¼ contact force
K¼ contact stiffness
R¼ radius
e¼ coefficient of restitution
m¼ mass
v¼ velocity
d¼ indentation
¼ Poisson’s ratio
s¼ impulse
Fig. 6 Final velocities comparison

References
In each model, we numerically solved for the post impact [1] Brach, R. M., 1991, Mechanical Impact Dynamics: Rigid Body Collisions, John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
velocities of the balls for different CORs. Numerical integration [2] Brogliato, B., 1999, Nonsmooth Mechanics, Springer, London, UK.
carried out to solve the differential equations in the compliance [3] Stronge, W. J., 2004, Impact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cam-
models. Then, we compared the post impact velocities with those bridge, UK.
obtained from the impulse momentum model (Eqs. (6) and [4] Aeberhard, U., Payr, M., and Glocker, C., 2006, “Theoretical and Experimental
Treatment of Perfect Multi-Contact-Collision,” Proceedings of the ACMD06,
Eq. (7)). Tokyo, Japan, Paper No. A00602.
We used the numerical values shown in Table 1. Figure 6 [5] Newton, I., 1686, Philosophiae Naturalis Principa Mathematica, Regional So-
depicts the post impact velocities for all the models. The lower ciety Press, London, UK.
group of the curves represents the velocity of the first ball (v1), [6] Poisson, S. D., 1817, Mechanics, Longmans, London.
[7] Stronge, W. J., 1990, “Rigid Body Collisions with Friction,” Proc. R. Soc. A,
while the upper group represent the velocity of the second ball 431, pp. 169–181.
(v2). [8] Hertz, H., 1896, Hertz’s Miscellaneous Papers, D. E. Jones, and G. A. Schott,
It is clear that the compliance model with permanent indenta- eds., MacMillan and Co. Ltd., London, pp. 146–183.
tion perfectly matches the impulse momentum model. On the [9] Johnson, K. L., 1987, Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, UK.
other hand, the compliance model with hysteresis damping [10] Hunt, K. H., and Crossley, F. R. E., 1975, “Coefficient of Restitution Inter-
matches the impulse momentum method outcomes on certain preted as Damping in Vibroimpact,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 42, pp. 440–445.
regions based on the model used. The model introduced by Ref. [11] Herbert, R. G., and McWhannell, D. C., 1977, “Shape and Frequency Composi-
[16] produces matching results for (e > 0.9). These outcomes also tion of Pulses From an Impact Pair,” ASME J. Eng. Ind., 99, pp. 513–518.
[12] Lee, T. W., and Wang, A. C., 1983, “On the Dynamics of Intermittent-Motion
agree with the experimental results in Ref. [15]. Our new model Mechanisms. Part 1: Dynamic Model and Response,” J. Mech. Trans. Autom.
shows a remarkable agreement for low COR (e < 0.3). Although Des., 105, pp. 534–540.
this is not yet the optimum model, it covers an important range of [13] Lankarani, H. M., and Nikravesh, P. E., 1990, “A Contact Force Model With
the COR specially for soft materials. Hysteresis Damping for Impact Analysis of Multi-Body Systems,” Mech. Des.,
112, p. 369376.
By solving the models again with higher/lower pre-impact [14] Gonthier, Y., McPhee, J., Lange, C., and Piedboeuf, J., 2002, “A Regularized
speeds, the responses is scaled up/down based on the speed value. Contact Model With Asymmetric Damping and Dwell-Time Dependent
Hence, we can conclude that the proposed correlations is inde- Friction,” Forum 2002, SCGM Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
pendent of the pre-impact speed. [15] Zhang, Y., and Sharf, I., 2009, “Validation of Nonlinear Viscoelastic Contact
Force Models for Low Speed Impact,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 76(5), p. 051002.
[16] Lankarani, H. M., and Nikravesh, P. E., 1994, “Contineous Contact Force
6 Conclusion Models for Impact Analysis on Multibody Systems,” Nonlinear Dyn., 5, pp.
193–207.
In this paper, we numerically solved the two ball inelastic [17] Ismail, K. A., and Stronge, W. J., 2008, “Impact of Viscoplastic Bodies: Dissi-
impact problem using the impulse momentum and the compliance pation and Restitution,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 75, p. 061011.

Journal of Applied Mechanics NOVEMBER 2012, Vol. 79 / 064506-5

Downloaded 23 Sep 2012 to 86.36.66.12. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

You might also like